Sunday, January 21, 2018

Shutdown’s Crux: Democrats’ Deep-Rooted Distrust of G.O.P. on Immigration

The foreseen government shutdown occurred midnight Saturday January 20 when house Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on the new immigration plan. It has long been a campaigning bedrock of the Trump presidency to remove any and all illegal immigrants from the United States and considerably lower the influx of foreign migrants across U.S. borders. On the other hand it is a constant party belief that Democrats will try and support those immigrants without separating them from their families and line of work. This rooted disagreement stands still as both parties are unable to decide on a compromise. Top Democrats Schumer and Pelosi have proposed possible appeasements including the agreement to support funding for the border wall if the president consents to support the protection of current immigrants. The unfortunate news is that the problems lies almost directly with the president. Both Democrats and Republicans are debating on peaceful compromises  but they need support of the President in doing so. Given Trumps long record of wavering and changing his mind on important bipartisan deals, the Democrats are simply unable to trust his support of any proposed overhaul of the DACA plans for fear of a completely different plan in the face of later questioning. This intense separation of parties is familiar in every era of political divisiveness dating back to the distrust between early Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig party. I believe that the issue needs to be resolved because as both parties continue to filibuster the worse the problem gets. What steps should Democrats take to end the shutdown? What things should either party compromise on in order to solve the immigration issue? Should the President have as much say in the matter as he currently does? Is a government shutdown an effective way of solving the issue or not?

Article Link

Saturday, January 20, 2018

North and South Korea meet again to discuss Winter Olympics

American President Donald Trump insists on being credited for initiating the diplomacy that led to the incident where South Korea allowed a North Korean delegation to enter the Winter Olympics, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in has conceded to Trump’s request, giving him “huge credit” for moving the talks along. The North and South Koreas’ women’s ice hockey teams have merged, despite heated disagreements from the Southern team and anger from South Koreans who have petitioned in opposition. The ire between the two Koreas harkens back to the Korean War where both Koreas claimed governance of the whole peninsula. I think that South and North Korea have taken an important step forward by agreeing to have a diplomatic conversation and accepting the U.S.'s attempts to help mediate said conversation, since this diplomacy may lead to lessened national tensions. I hope that the merging the two teams represents an ongoing trend that may one day unite the two Koreas and completely bury what some still consider an unfinished war. But how does one bury the hatchet after so much bloodshed has been spilled on both sides? And how can neighboring countries like China or Japan reach an agreement on how a united Korea will fit in the international arena? Do you think that these talks will fall apart or not?

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

The Logan Paul YouTube controversy and what we should expect from internet platforms

Article Link

I expect you guys have heard a great deal on the Logan Paul controversy by now. While shocking and appalling in every respect, this issue is not new to YouTube and other social media platforms, in a general sense. It seems that maintaining a friendly and honest online ecosystem is somewhat incompatible with utter and complete user autonomy. Not to mention platform administrators simply cannot keep up quality control protocols with such a large volume of content. View ploys like Logan Paul's "suicide forest expedition" are nothing new, however. This issue bears a striking resemblance to the rise of yellow journalism in the early 20th century. The sensational, exaggerated newspaper headlines of that era are in many ways the grandfathers of today's clickbait. So in an age plagued by "fake news" and sensational video titles and content designed to generate maximum views possible, how does one go about balancing quality control and user freedom? How is each insured and maintained? Where and how do compromises need to be made?

Monday, January 15, 2018

A false alert of an impending missile attack highlights just how unprepared the country is for nuclear disaster.

article link

Recently in Hawaii, there was a nuclear warning instituted, many in Hawaii thought that the island was about to be hit with a nuclear missile for about an hour, until the emergency was announced to be a false alarm caused by the warning button accidentally being pressed. This instance of nuclear panic is reminiscent of the cold war, when America constantly remained at the brink of nuclear war. This error served to demonstrate how unprepared America is for a nuclear war. I believe that preparedness on how to react in any emergency situation, especially one as potentially frightening as this, should be taught more to reduce panicking populace in case of an actual emergency.

Outcry After Louisiana Teacher Arrested During School Board Meeting

article link

During a school board meeting, the teachers were asked to put out statements on whether or not they agree with the superintendent’s raise, and Deyshia Hargrave calmly voiced her opinion against the raise, then was ordered out of the meeting. This is a complete outrage. Hargrave said, “It's absurd that we're even considering giving someone a raise when these teachers are working this hard and not getting a dime.” These statements continue the pattern that was clearly seen in the Gilded Age; those with more power get more money while those in the lower positions work just as hard and receive very little. A specific occurrence showing the problems this pattern creates is the Homestead Strike. In my opinion I feel like there will continue to be issues between those in higher positions and those in lower positions on the topic of pay, however it is completely unacceptable that Hargrave was kicked out and even arrested for calmly voicing her viewpoint. The American Civil Liberties Union made a good point that it is the constitutional right for people to express their views, “and the fact that a schoolteacher was arrested at a public meeting of the school board is especially troubling.” Do you guys think that it was acceptable for Hargrave to be escorted out of the meeting and handcuffed? In your opinion, what should have happened in the meeting?

Sunday, January 14, 2018

#MeToo Women?

At first, female opposition to #MeToo seems impossible, but considering the significant number of women that protested the suffrage movement in the 20th century, it’s definitely possible. However, unlike the anti-suffrage movement, which supported a more “traditional” society, the 100 French women that wrote the letter criticizing #MeToo claim that the movement threatens a more “free” society where sexuality isn’t a taboo, as these women, once considered “feminists,” tried to accomplish in the ‘60s. The article also mentions the debate over #MeToo being a “witch hunt” used to get back at men regardless of the severity of their offense. I think it’s too early to call #MeToo “puritanical” or a “witch hunt,” as I am unsure if this movement will even stand the test of time. Additionally, as long as Weinstein is a free man, how much justice is #MeToo really serving? Do you think #MeToo is still standing up for the right cause and that the French women are misinterpreting the purpose, or is the original purpose being exploited as they claim?

What 'Dreamers' Say About the Great Immigration Debate

"Kevin Vaszquez, center, was one of a group of young immigrants visiting Congress this week to urge them to reach a deal."

By Beata Gold
Dreamers are people who were illegally brought to America as children. They are protected by the DACA act which allowed them to live similarly to American citizens (have a social security number, own a car, etc.). However, Trump ended the DACA act, saying that when authorizations expire they will be treated like other undocumented immigrants, and gave a window of time for congress to make the final decision. Most dreamers don't remember a time when they did not live in America: their families, occupations, homes, and lives are all in America. Heymi Elvir Maldonado says she "feels like [she's] in between two worlds" because if she were to move back to Honduras, she would not be accepted and it would be difficult to settle in a completely unknown country, with different norms. It would be difficult for her to find a stable way to make a living. With the U.S. being founded by immigrants, what is your opinion on Trump's decision? Is nativism a current issue as well as one of the past? Keep in mind that (in my opinion) not everyone should be allowed into the country because many who legally apply for citizenship get denied. Is it fair that because they were brought as children, they should have the right to stay while those who legally applied were denied? In my opinion, the length of time lived in the U.S. gives them the right to be protected from deportation. However, the U.S. should strengthen enforcement of immigration laws because everyone should have an equal opportunity to immigrate and it is unfair for those who are denied living in the U.S. Please don't just state your opinion (because most people will agree), state if you have a possible solution to the problem at hand. If DACA were to continue, how would the U.S. promote legal immigration rather than illegal, so that DACA would not be as prominent of an issue as now? Lastly, how can the government ensure that each applicant is fairly examined (some say they feel they are unfairly judged by race)?
^go to "You frequently encountered the belief that immigration law was administered unfairly and inconsistently." subheading